Your message dated Mon, 04 Jul 2005 10:41:08 +1000
with message-id <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
and subject line Bug#316665: defoma: duplicate scripts in different places
has caused the attached Bug report to be marked as done.
This means that you claim that the problem has been dealt with.
If this is not the case it is now your responsibility to reopen the
Bug report if necessary, and/or fix the problem forthwith.
(NB: If you are a system administrator and have no idea what I am
talking about this indicates a serious mail system misconfiguration
somewhere. Please contact me immediately.)
Debian bug tracking system administrator
(administrator, Debian Bugs database)
--------------------------------------
Received: (at submit) by bugs.debian.org; 2 Jul 2005 20:04:42 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sat Jul 02 13:04:42 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from tavo-26-238.sdsu.edu (aty786.sdsu.edu) [130.191.26.238]
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DooED-0001ux-00; Sat, 02 Jul 2005 13:04:42 -0700
Received: by aty786.sdsu.edu (Postfix, from userid 502)
id 69026EA85; Sat, 2 Jul 2005 13:04:08 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: "Andrew T. Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: defoma: duplicate scripts in different places
X-Mailer: reportbug 3.8
Date: Sat, 02 Jul 2005 13:04:08 -0700
Message-Id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-8.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_PACKAGE
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
Package: defoma
Version: 0.11.8-0.1
Severity: normal
It appears that defoma installs identical scripts in 2 different places:
/scratch/var/lib/defoma/scripts:
total 76
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3370 Jun 9 17:40 fontconfig.defoma
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 19085 Aug 26 2002 gs.defoma
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2935 Jun 9 17:39 libwmf0.2-7.defoma
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 8701 Jun 20 09:24 pango.defoma
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7503 Jun 20 09:20 psfontmgr.defoma
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3647 Aug 26 2002 vflib2.defoma
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 23666 Aug 27 2002 x-ttcidfont-conf.defoma
/usr/share/defoma/scripts:
total 76
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3370 Mar 10 19:03 fontconfig.defoma
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 19085 Mar 13 09:47 gs.defoma
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 2935 Mar 25 12:25 libwmf0.2-7.defoma
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 8701 Mar 6 01:02 pango.defoma
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 7503 Aug 21 2004 psfontmgr.defoma
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 3647 Sep 13 2003 vflib2.defoma
-rw-r--r-- 1 root root 23666 Apr 16 2004 x-ttcidfont-conf.defoma
Shouldn't one of these be a set of links pointing to the other?
If someone modified one set of scripts and not the other, all sorts of
confusion could arise.
-- System Information:
Debian Release: 3.1
Architecture: i386 (i686)
Kernel: Linux 2.4.18-1-k7
Locale: LANG=en_US, LC_CTYPE=en_US (charmap=ISO-8859-1)
Versions of packages defoma depends on:
ii dialog 1.0-20050306-1 Displays user-friendly dialog boxe
ii file 4.12-1 Determines file type using "magic"
ii perl 5.8.4-8 Larry Wall's Practical Extraction
ii whiptail 0.51.6-20 Displays user-friendly dialog boxe
-- no debconf information
---------------------------------------
Received: (at 316665-done) by bugs.debian.org; 4 Jul 2005 00:41:23 +0000
>From [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sun Jul 03 17:41:23 2005
Return-path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Received: from emu.urnet.com.au [203.7.149.10] (mail)
by spohr.debian.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 1 (Debian))
id 1DpF1X-0002d1-00; Sun, 03 Jul 2005 17:41:23 -0700
Received: from lambast.inside.urnet.com.au ([10.0.6.19])
by emu.urnet.com.au with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian))
id 1DpF1K-0002fz-00; Mon, 04 Jul 2005 10:41:10 +1000
Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2005 10:41:08 +1000
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
From: Angus Lees <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Andrew T. Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Bug#316665: defoma: duplicate scripts in different places
In-Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Mail-Followup-To: "Andrew T. Young" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>,
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.14.0 (Africa) XEmacs/21.4 (Jumbo Shrimp)
X-Tom-Swifty: "My terminal is completely screwed up," Tom cursed.
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.6 - "Maruoka")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-MailScanner: Found to be clean
X-MailScanner-SpamCheck: not spam, SpamAssassin (score=-2.599, required 5,
autolearn=not spam, BAYES_00 -2.60)
Delivered-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
(1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on spohr.debian.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=4.0 tests=BAYES_00,HAS_BUG_NUMBER
autolearn=no version=2.60-bugs.debian.org_2005_01_02
X-Spam-Level:
At Sat, 02 Jul 2005 13:04:08 -0700, Andrew T. Young wrote:
> It appears that defoma installs identical scripts in 2 different places:
> /scratch/var/lib/defoma/scripts:
> /usr/share/defoma/scripts:
>
> Shouldn't one of these be a set of links pointing to the other?
> If someone modified one set of scripts and not the other, all sorts of
> confusion could arise.
No, these scripts should be copies. This is used to handle script
upgrades (and a few other package management corner cases) without
having to provide back-compatibility in every defoma script.
--
- Gus
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
